Posted
by
Hemos
on Thursday January 04, 2001 @10:28AM
from the pretty-damn-cool dept.

LinuxNews.pl writes: "Remember why you compiled your framebuffer into kernel? Of course!
Because of the fblogo -- great penguin image on startup :)
Now you can update your fblogo and create a graphical startup, just
like in Windows. There are few themes (one is for Debian!)
Check out the whole story on Linuxnews.pl" You can get more info on the Linux Progress Page from their website -- that's not to say, of course, that streaming text isn't pretty in its own special way -- but eyecandy always counts for something. (Can anyone point to a good runs-under-Linux way to change the startup logo in the BIOS, as well, similar to this method that Windows users can use to update the "Energy Star" logo? We're well on our way to a hyper-custom boot process ...)

You see this as a religious war. It isn't. You try to peg me as a zealot, I am not.

Has it ever occured to you that some of us that use Unix (or Windows) don't do so for religious reasons? Has it ever occured to you that some of us actually enjoy the operating system that we choose because we understand it and enjoy using it? And, have you ever stopped to think that just because we defend one doesn't mean we can't understand the need for others and new and different things.

Personally, my favorite operating system is BeOS, but I can't use it on a daily basis because it doesn't have the applications available for it. So, I am a Unix/Unix clone user. Windows doesn't make sense to me, but for those that it does, I say let them use it in peace.

Just because I only spoke of the two operating systems doesn't mean that I totally disregard all others. In fact, I am quite happy to try any OS that comes my way. I probably enjoy change a lot more than others. But for business purposes, Unix serves my needs. Forgive me if I actually enjoy using what I already have. If I found something that served my needs better, I would take it. But at the moment, I am satisfied with what I have. Not that I don't occassionally wish for more, but you work with what you've got.

BTW, nice job of getting pissed off about nothing. Your attempt to peg me as a zealot was quite humorous. This whole religious fervor that exists around the operting system issue just seems like such non-sense. It's just a computer operating system. It's not that important. And if you think it is, then please, take a vacation.

I support everyone's right to choose whatever operating system they wish. I spoke of the two most common because it is assumed that they are the most important, and that for some reason one must become more and more like the other (remember the old "better Unix than Unix" line?). Both can exist as they are, as can several other operating systems. AtheOS, Plan 9, or even the variations on the Linux kernel that have started coming out that aren't really Unix based. Good luck to all of them. I love variety.

Well, in the case of a bootup screen I would hope to god that it is something that is put in via the boot configuration program, not something in the kernel. (Lilo or grub should allow this, right?)

The type of things that really make me shudder in fear is when people start saying that all of X should be put into kernel-space. Oh god, now that would be the last thing you would want to do. X locks? So does your box. Great idea guys.

But, for those hard-core gamers I don't see a problem in making an X module in the kernel that remains "optional". But I fear in this rush to embrace the Windows mentality of the average computer user we will slowly remove the idea of having "optional" things in the Linux kernel. I hope I'm wrong, but my paranoia has rarely been proven wrong lately.

Completely and totally useless waste of electricity, but it would give the newbies out there the feeling that their computers were smarter than the Windows boxes ("Heh, my computer tells me what it is doing."), and a nice reassuring feeling that everything is working. It would also make the bootup 'feel' faster (though it would actually be slower), and it would let me do something else during bootup and still be informed if something went wrong.

In some segements of the Linux community, there seems to be an irrational penis-envy of Windows, which engenders an even more irrational desire to make Linux "look" and "feel" just like Microsoft's product.

Why?

Shouldn't we be working on something more important than eye-candy for spreadsheet monkeys? Like maybe defining a new desktop metapahor? Perhaps finding new ways of presenting information and interacting with it? Why is it that Linux's desktop environments seem bent on copying Windows, when they could strike out in bold new directions, taking us where no OS has taken us before?

Okay -- maybe it will be easier to get "the boss" to authorize Linux in the server room if it looks pretty on his desktop. Maybe... but should that dictate expending effort on fins when what's needed is better gas economy? In other words, are we engineering what Linux needs, or are we adding silly stuff just to keep up with Microsoft, or to assauge some false sense of inadequacy?

1. Your mother should NOT be running linux. How many mom's can barely run windows?!

2. Interoperability has always been an issue, WILL always be an issue with Microsoft. Not because they don't want to cooperate but its called Market Share.. It's business not about interoperability.

3. Open Source doesn't need Linux to become the "preferred methodology"; It needs coders and people willing to develop open source for Windows instead of Linux.

4. Better acceptance on the desktop leads to better acceptance in the boardroom? Don't think so, thats not how it works. It works more like, "What can get the job done; who can be accounted for if anything breaks." With Linux thats not how it is so no matter how many desktops run it if they can't find a redhat or sun to blame it won't be their server solution.

5. I could go on for hours as to why your reasons have little to nothing to do with Linux and/or why your reasons are faulty. Especially the mother one; but you get the point.

This sort of thing is probably a good idea as long as it has one simple feature. If you press a specific key during the start up sequence
the nice pretty image disappears and is replaced by the useful messages.

This does appear to be the case. It displays the image on virtual terminal 2, and the boot messages remain on terminal 1. It shows warnings and errors with an icon, and if you care for the details, just switch to terminal 1.

First of all, this isn't an official part of
Linux, it's just some fellow doing it as a
goof to satisfy his buddy. He does some
very minimal theme support and releases it
into user-land under GPL in case someone
else might get a kick out of it. Isn't the
ability to do _that_ part of the beauty of
Linux?

Along with the "eyecandy" afficionados, I
think the main branch of folks who will
be appreciative of this would be the
embedded-Linux developers. There is quite
a push towards bringing Linux into things
like kiosks and consumer devices, and the
coders would very much need to customize
and "prettyfy" the boot process in order
to sell Linux to the suits (well, that and
fast-boot journaling filesystems like
reiserfs.)

If it took a minute for your car to start, and car manufacturers had the ability to display a "Welcome to Toyota.. car initializing" message on your display (er, windshield), they would. Hell, they'd probably sell advertising space. (Shit, I should patent that)

"But I'm not a coder; I just want l33t stuff done!" you cry. Tough. Most people who develope stuff for Linux do it because they want to. Want to go cry to someone because they didn't write what *you* wanted them to? I'm sorry, I missed seeing your name on the paystub. Oh, yeah, the developer you whined to works for free.

"But that's not fair! I'm a Linux user and you're copping a l33t3r-than-thou attitude!" Well, again, tough. So are you. You want something cool, you don't want to work on it...you want sympathy? Well, I can sympathize with not being able to code it, because I'm no good at coding 3D stuff, but you don't see me bitching and moaning about how cool stuff I want done that I can't possibly help with isn't getting done.

Get over it. People work on what they want to when they work for free. It's a neat little hack and if you don't like it, ignore it.

A fully configurable BIOS -- graphical or command line, your choice -- is really the core of a truly open system. Problem is, most of us still run on AMI or some other closed source BIOS. (Don't even get me started about my experiences with Microid Research's MR BIOS upgrade. The product may be great, but my experience with the company was a nightmare.)

If you're interested, take a look at the work of the folks at the Open BIOS project [linux.de]. They're seem to be mainly talk at this point, but the wishlist is acting as a discussion group right now and there's an ongoing debate between lots of features and a minimalist approach.

I'll admit that I'm a graphical weenie (personally, I'd prefer a Mac-like experience from the get-go), but if more developers got involved, we could all have our choice.

This is not dumb. This is very important for several popular applications of Linux - Kiosk-like systems, set top boxes, and other consumer applicances. It is also important for the consumer market - people who don't want to be engineers to run their computers.

Why does everyone want linux to "gain a substantial foothold on the desktop".

Uhh, because they can make money supporting it? Because we are all sick of dealing with Microsoft? Because Linux is more stable and cheaper than Embedded NT? Because it will make the world a better place? You NEED A REASON? What kind of geek needs a reason?

I'd really pay to see some of your faces when you compile that new kernel and all you get is a stupid splash screen instead of making sure everything is working

Don't you get it? This is perfect for applications where an engineer designs a system, puts it together, and sends the whole thing to consumers who doesn't know anything about computers.

Computers as Applicances. That is what most end users want. You turn it on, it works, you get your email and check cnn.com, and you turn it off.

That is what you want if you are selling and supporting them. You do not want people to dick around and call in to tech support saying:

"I plugged in your system and now my TV has a lot of weird looking white and black text go by really fast when I turn it on. I can't read it all, and it looks confusing? Is my system broken? Should I take it back to the store?"

You can modify your rc.* scripts to talk to the graphical boot program. Or, you can switch to an alternate console to read the entire message set (default install puts traditional messages on/dev/tty2).

I installed it last week (patched against a 2.2.17 kernel, BTW. Why not 2.2.18? I have to patch for reiser and ide, and couldn't remember where the ide patches are/were) and it worked fine. It flows quite nicely into XDM.

My parents used to play that trick on me when I was a kid. I was a TV junkie and would go into the living room when the TV was on. They'd carefully turn on the TV when I was in my room playing (with the doors closed to keep from bugging them too much) and I'd hear the whine off the picture tube. They still don't believe me when I say I can hear it, and I'm 25 now.:-)

``on my machine, windoze kicks the hell out of linux in boot time. Linux takes probably 4 or 5 times as long.''

Really?!

I see the exact opposite. Of course, at home I'm still running a PentiumPro system and it's being SMP to boot (pun intended) probably explains why. Windows performance sucked on PPros and Linux actually understands SMP whereas my copy of Win95 doesn't. At work, my Linux box has half the clock rate but still boots in slightly less time than the NT box does.

I agree - it's a vital step to desktop acceptance for not-hacker-user. But we don't want to lose hackers, right? So it is also vital to leave a way how to kick off eyecandy and let kernel info scroll by. And it should be possible to do it either permanently (through some boot time parametr) or during the bootup (by hitting ESC or something).

Isn't the beauty of linux supposed to be how rarely it needs to be restarted? As much as this sounds just like eyecandy, it's actually got the potential to be a bigger deal than you'd think. Especially for the whole linux as an OS for everyone movement. Think about the average consumer that doesn't care what their computer is doing when booting up, they just want it running. A nice graphical progress bar (something along the lines of the macos startup deal), but maybe just a tad bit more geeky just to keep it interesting. That would mean more to most people than text flying by faster than you can read it.

If boot up messages intimidate them, wait until they login and are staring at a bash prompt... I think a pretty splash screen is the last thing to worry about when trying to make *nix more newbie-friendly.

Actually, on a x86 machine, it is possible to change your BIOS screen's logo, unfortunately, I believe its bios dependent, and there is no collection of howto's that lists several bioses (biosi?). A google search with your bios and a few other keywords ("change splash screen" or "change image" seems to work) should find it if its possible and a common bios.

Well we are on the subject...

To change Microsoft Windows startup/shutdown screen, do a search for logo.sys (boot), logow.sys (please wait...), and logos.sys (its now safe to...). Back them up, and then replace them with a 256 color bitmap with dimensions of 320 (width) x 400 (height). To remove the annoying startup screen (like I did) just download Tweak UI which can be found at Microsoft's website (its one of their powertools, and a free download). Tweak UI does a couple of other nice tricks, its worth hunting down if you need to use windows. www.regedit.com [regedit.com] has a list of other things to customize with windows.

Under linux, I wouldn't want to do a change like this, the information is rather useful that's displayed, and I'd hate for the dang image to cover up the error messages, it seems rather counter-productive.

The KDE and Debian ones seem fairly cool. However I'd have to say that the boot screen for Windows Whistler leaves them all in the dust in terms of coolness;) (Plus Whistler's XDM login type screen implimentation is really neat looking)

How long before we see distributions package their own boot screen with the OS install?

Wow, it seems I've really pissed some people off with the preceding comment. I even managed a flamebait rating. So, allow me to post my apologies.

I'm sorry that I don't believe Linux should become a Windows clone.

I'm sorry that I don't believe the concept of removing choices is a good thing.

I'm sorry that I am happy with the current tool I have (namely, I'm happy with Unix and clones right now).

I'm sorry that I don't tow the line and say that the ultimate goal for Linux should be total desktop domination and that the only way to achieve that domination is by destroying Linux as it exists and turning it into an exact duplicate of Windows.

I'm sorry that I disagree with the "slashdot majority".

I'm sorry that I said Windows isn't that bad. (That one is probably the reason I got "flamebait".)

And mostly I'm sorry that I was stupid enough to voice my opinion on an article about something flashy and stupid for Linux.

I really don't see how a boot-splash is newsworthy. Eye-candy is great, but what's the real use of it? Whatever.

Why are "office suites" the supposed be-all, end-all application that we all need to lead happy and productive lives? For many users, these office suites are among the most underused applications on their desktops. I imagine many Linux users like me would agree. So it's not hard to spend more time customizing your desktop than you do using an office suite, now is it?

Frankly, I'm just getting sick of hearing about how we need office suites to be able to keep our dicks up long enough to get a woman off. Please. WOrd processing and Spreadsheets just aren't that useful.

I almost never reboot. 1 January I made a great mistake and rebooted for the first time in nearly six months. Why go to the trouble of installing such a thing and using disk space for it if I don't see it but once a year?

Computers are meant to run around-the-clock. I don't understand this reluctance to have 'em always on.

You think this is a strawman? I said, don't remove choice. Everyone starts jumping up and down saying, "We aren't". I say, "have you looked at distros lately?" Everyone says, you are a fucking idiot.

I agree, I am a fucking idiot. Somewhere here there is a message that I am obviously not capable of getting across. Too many people are utterly convinced that Linux cannot be taken in a direction that isn't positive, and any direction it goes is bound to be good.

So fucking be it. Rarely do I see this closed-minded mentality in the BSD world. I guess it's true. Bring the masses to *nix, and the masses will become far more zealotous over the idealisms that "could" be there than any of the zealots were over the hopes that were there.

FUCKING HELL! This is probably the stupidest flamewar I've been involved in. And I just can't understand why it is so hard to accept someone saying honestly that as long as it is a choice, I have no problem with it. And believe it or not, I've said that over and over again.

But no one seems to see that. All they see is the chance to piss someone off. SO FUCK YOU ALL!

Jesus christ, and people wonder why slashdot is full of trolls. It's because you are labelled that way even if you are trying to be rational. Fucking bunch of stuck up idiots.

Consultants (like me) who tote their laptop around with them and advertise that they use Linux instead of Winders. Consultants who are going into companies trying to save those companies money by deploying linux where appropriate. This small bit of eye candy creates a huge amount of confidence for the client.

(Yes it's irrational. Welcome to consulting.)

The point is that making Linux attractive to my client gives me the oppurtunity to better meet their needs. When I do that, I get more work, and recommendataions.

When ya set up a server, ya build a tank.
Metal seats, olive drab - big and powerful, but not exactly luxury.

When ya set up yer own machines, ya build a gold-plated lowrider tank. (Just like in that rap video...you know the one.)
Still big and powerful, but with overstuffed velvet seats, furry trim and 15" subs in the back.

There's no real point to this reply, I just saw a good chance to reference the gold-plated tank
(Which I think is one of the most important innovations of the 20th century. Only a gold-plated lowrider 747 could be better)...

Ok, so I'm bored and I'm quitting my job, so I have *lots* of time to waste on/. Punto by punto:

Since when did linux cater to the desktop?
And why shouldn't it?

If you want your computer as an appliance only THEN buy an I-opener it'll do the job just fine.
Even though this was not one of the original poster's assertions, he may want to do it for his clients, i.e., wants to sell his own I-opener

If you are sick of using windows why do you want linux to look and act like windows?
Perhaps we're sick of using Windows for reasons other than loooks, how about that?

Embedded systems don't need to show the boot messages. Infact most embedded systems that use linux don't show the messages; however you don't know what you're talking about, so I'd expect that from you.
Embedded system is a broad concept. Many Linux based consumer gadgets may not need a boot screen, but that doesn't mean them all should not have one.

If an engineer wants a pretty package; so be it. Don't add that shit to the kernel though. Linux worked fine without it before. And use windows it was made for that type of stuff
I'm wondering why adding HTTP static service to look good on benchmarks is a worthy goal and this thing is not. As long as you can (ah, that word again) compile it out, I don't see how that can be bad.

If the messages scroll by too fast thats a good sign. I want to know when I have a kernel panic and
I would also like to know how the hardware is interepted under linux if I've added new hardware (i/os,
interrupts etc). When the messages stop.. So do I; to figure out the problem....

Linux is not for a dumb user. Unix is not for a dumb user. Freebsd/Openbsd and Solaris is not for a dumb user. ITS not intended to be for a dumb user. Its inteded for people that want power from their systems. So why would you dumb down linux for the dumb user? All in name of the desktop?
Brushing aside the little fact that Linux, FreeBSD, UNIX [TM] and ITS (oh wait, that was only a typo, right? right?) are different systems with different design goals, which were not laid out by you, and which do not include, I'm fairly confident, "not being intended for the dumb", I have to remind you that "dumb" is a very broad stroke to paint people with. A historian who is a very accomplished scholar has no "right" to use Linux, just because she haven't got the time to learn all the command line option to find(1)? I find that kind of lofty arrogance preposterous and irritating.

Look at the history of what Unix and Unix like systems have been used for, then speak intelligently.

Ok, so read up on your history. In case you're too lazy for that here's the deal in a nutshell: UNIX[TM] was designed for a computer whose manufacturer is now defunct, by a company which is now split in atoms, so that their office employees could write manuals with it and their engineers could play games. It was designed from the start so that end users could use it. Of course, the end user at AT&T's offices in the '70s was used to terminals. That's not the case now.
--

Color me duly chastised... but I still don't buy it. It's a splash screen, which not only can you disable while it's displaying, you can even elect to not use it. Your argument appears to me that you want variety, so long as it was never in Windows, because that would make it "too much like Windows". Does Microsoft's job for them, really... true, if it's copied then they can claim that Linux is "chasing taillights", but otherwise they can claim it's a "unique Microsoft innovation" that Linux can't even copy.

I can only imagine the extent of your apoplexy at the very thought of a binary C++ linker standard and API like COM ever making it into unix. Diversity is attained through cross-fertilization, not specialization of every individual.

...about the splash screen hiding the boot info, try emulating FreeBSD's behavior. Hit space while the splash screen is up, and there's your scrolly messages again. The selection of a splash screen is done in the bootloader too, controlled by a module the bootloader loads (the kernel is loaded the same way as any other module, at least interface-wise, it can even unload a kernel and use a different one).

I think you missed the point. I'm not trying to get away from complexity. Computer are definitely complex and should remain so. That's what makes them so useful. But the idea is to make that complexity transparent. It shouldn't be part of the user's everyday experience, unless they choose it to be.

``There's just nothing quite like the steady whir
and occassional buzzing of a half dozen 3" fans to calm your nerves!''

I've always found the sound of a bunch of fans (and the slow modulation due to the slight speed variations) reminiscent of the Cylons from the old Battlestar Gallactica series. Not very restful, IMHO. I leave the computers on but they're downstairs to it difficult to here 'em.

Back on topic, though: I sort of like the idea of the graphical bootstrap display. But then I know about single user mode and where to find the boot logs in the event something goes awry; your average Linux newcomer probably won't. On the other hand, today's killer CPUs speeds make the amount of time spent in scrolling text while booting almost non-existent. Does your average newbie really mind that there's a brief time spent with (Oh, No!) text on the screen?

It's not mandatory to have this you know. But it would be nice to have it available as a option selected during the initial installation or as an add-on. (I'm betting on RedHat or Caldera being the first distribution to make it available.)

The problem with Linux booting isn't the text, its the fact that the text is butt-ugly and poorly formated. ReiserFS even does the no-no of running over a line (which you really don't want to do for a status messege.) If the bootup text was succinct (who cares about every single device enumerated unless you specify a verbose boot?) well formated, and well-organized (system messages, fs messeges, etc in order, and no stupid stuff like saying that the messege is coming from usb.c instead of the usb subsystem) then I think many more people would appreciate the Linux text boot.

Of course, if it booted as fast as BeOS, the whole splash screen issue becomes more or less irrelevant;)

The *only* change that should happen in the current *nix boot sequences is to ad Majel Barrret's voice announcing key checkpoints , such as "going multiuser" and daemon initialization . . .:)

What kind of idiot wouldn't want James Earl Jones announcing the steps of the boot process?
"This is Multiuser"
"Now initializing X Windows"
"Restarting the system"
"System Halted"
I'm sure with all the work he's done we could piece together snippets of movies and voiceovers he's done. Remember, he was in "Cabin in the Sky" way back in the forties.

> For those of us that do, we do not want to be stuck having to choose between Windows and what used to be a Unix clone but is now a Windows clone

Thank god for companies and the occasional OS developer that believes that there is a possibility of not only more than two operating systems existing in the universe, but that even a Unix-like OS need not recycle its existing C API and TTY interface for every purpose from now until the end of time lest it become corrupted with the foul taint of the unclean.

You're the one creating the dichotomy where none need exist. If my only choices are Unix The Way It Was And Shall Be Forever And Ever Amen and Microsoft "Where Does Marketing Want You To Go Today" Windows, I want neither.

I can hear that CRT scanning noise too. It really annoys me. I discovered after spending time at college only behind high quality Sony Trinitron computer monitors, that the scanning noise of a normal TV drives me nuts and can give me a headache.

The fan noise doesn't bother me at all. Well, when I tried running a SPARCserver 670MP in my dorm room, it did. However, nothing else there makes an annoying fan noise. Actually, the most audible noise from my rack of machines is a hard drive. And it's only a soft high-frequency whine that isn't annoying at all.

Besides that, its just not elegant. I don't change the hardware on my machine every other day, and after I know the thing is setup correctly, I really would rather look at a nice bootup screen than see that useless text scroll by.

> I remember the first time I booted windows95.
> The first thing I cried out is "Where is all the
> bootup information??" . From beeing readily
> available before, now most of it was hidden.

It's still all there. All you had to do was hit ESC and you could see all of it. But let's be honest, how often do you need to? Unless something's wrong there's no reason to watch the same messages over and over again.

> I don't want a penguin displayed during the
> bootup. I want the information, as it reveals if
> something isn't the way it should be, without
> having to fiddle with logging and other
> bullshit.

Fine. Here's an idea, don't load the patch. Then you'll have all your purist kernel messages, and the rest of us can customize our boot process. (BTW, I used that patch in an earlier kernel and it does still show you all the regular kernel messages, it just has Tux in the upper left corner).

Besides, there's always `dmesg`.

> Eye candy is nice, but not when it removes
> possibly Very Important Information.

I don't get it. How is it removing information? Just because you don't have to see it when the system boots doesn't mean it's missing, has been removed, or otherwise taken away from you. If you'd actually investigated some of this instead of instantly deciding it's evil and ranting against it, you'd realize that it's not as bad as you think it is.

Hell for some people it could be quite enjoyable. Think of all the people who use GTK+, enlightenment, Windowmaker, IceWM, or Blackbox themes. Now they can theme their kernel boot sequence. Choice.

I once read a review of Linux by a non-technical writer. Believe it or not, the boot messages scrolling past were irksome to this reviewer, and she asked someone why they were necessary. The reply was "Oh, engineers like that sort of thing". This answer, apparently, summed up everything that was wrong with Linux for this particular reviewer.

Well, of course, if her computer went wrong, I'm sure she'd be glad if the support personell she called had something to go on -- but this does raise a point. Part of making Linux appeal to the masses (if that's your bag -- by no means does everyone even care if the masses use Linux) is to make every stage pretty: prettify X (with Gnome, E etc), prettify logons (gdm vs xdm), prettify the boot process. Many people *are* that shallow.

So: this is a good thing. I'd advocate putting it in the sock kernel; as long as there's a way to switch to the proper boot messages when you need to see them.--

Shouldn't we be working on something more important than eye-candy for spreadsheet monkeys? Like maybe defining a new desktop metapahor? Perhaps finding new ways of presenting information and interacting with it? Why is it that Linux's desktop environments seem bent on copying Windows

Including apparently copying some on Windows' worst "features". e.g. the "end user is sysadmin" paradigm. Fine for someone with their home machine. A pain in any corporate setting. This seems another thing targeted at the "home" user, but at least here it's an option.

The *only* change that should happen in the current *nix boot sequences is to ad Majel Barrret's voice announcing key checkpoints , such as "going multiuser" and daemon initialization . . .:)

Ever see a Netwinder? When it's fully booted you'll hear "Welcome to Netwinder." Once it's shut down you'll hear a "bloop."

It's actually quite useful when there's no monitor. You'll know when you can log in or remove the power. After seeing this, we implemented startup and shutdown sounds on the servers we sell. They're actually spacey sounds because we couldn't get the PC speaker driver working in the kernel.:-(*

...and it's not as if Linux users don't already know this. Look how much emphasis is put on theming window managers, widget sets and applications. I bet that in 2000, the total time Linux users spent fiddling with the look of their desktops exceeded the time spent in office suites by a factor of 10.

...is not something that can be ignored when trying to get one's grandma to install linux or another OSOS.

Remember that one of the points that Apple is selling more than anything else about OSX is its graphical 'beauty' (something like that at any rate.) Steve and Apple marketing truly expect that the graphical theme they've layered on top of their GUI and *nix OS will draw users. When I worked on a Mac at a certain design firm, one of the most used applications was Kaleidoscope. (If you didn't know, it's a set of extensions that allows for complete skinning of the Mac0S.) Windows 'Themes' were so important that Microsoft took them out of the 'Plus' packs and put them into the Main OS install for both Win9x and 200x. While themes are available for some of the different X GUI's, *compelete* one button customization is just not there yet. While it doesn't add any real usability, this will be a major step towards getting more mainline acceptance (and mainline apps) for Linux or any other OSOS

Why is everyone so convinced that Linux has to be prettied up, promoted, and made palatable to the masses?

Because the masses have money. Companies like money. Companies that see the prospect of money in Linux on the desktop are more likely to publish Linux ports of their video games, write Linux drivers for their hardware, and offer Linux-compatible ISP services and online media.

I like Linux game, Linux drivers, and Linux compatibility. Any more questions?

There are many more reasons why even the most hardcore, non-gaming, free-software-only Linux user still benefits by "Linux for the masses", though. You may complain that Red Hat is aiming for a Linux distribution a 3 year old can use... but they're not taking away our Perl interpreters and ssh daemons to do it, and eventually that 3 year old may grow up and spend a little time playing around with the compiler himself.

The other thing that's "vital for desktop acceptance" is an office suite of the caliber of MS Office 2000, which isn't going to happen unless they decide to port it.

Of course it isn't. Free software developers could never produce any sort of useful desktop [gnome.org] software [gimp.org] on their own, certainly not any office [kde.org] programs. [abisource.com] That stuff is just too [kernel.org] complicated [xfree86.org] for a bunch of hackers. Why, where would they even start? [openoffice.org]

There was also news on Yahoo about some discrimination suit against MS, but that's not as important as the Boogie Bass or this. Go linux! wa hooo! With the linux boot up screen, we are one step closer to taking over the desktop!

Why is everyone so convinced that Linux has to be prettied up, promoted, and made palatable to the masses?

Because not everyone is convinced that being on the fringe is all that great, because many think that functionality precludes prettiness and lastly, because perceiving their beloved OS as a good thing they want their non-geek friends and relatives to use it too, without having to become geeks themselves.

Is it such a bad idea after all, that should prompt the same old tired reactions every time something like this is advanced? Is it so terrible to have a nice feature that can be used by non-geeks, but can be switched off by the geeky crowd if it displeases them?--

ONe otf the things that sticks out most inmy memory of the second west
coast computer faire is the votrax attachment. It connected to a
parallel port, and kept telling passerbys, "My name is vo-trax. I can
say an-y-thing."

Oops, s/parallel/Centronics/ above. It's essentially the same thing,
but the terminology was different then (and they were rarely
bidirectional on the 8 bits . ..).

You'd have needed a text=>phoneme dictionary, but this was still
shipping technology in the late 70's. If memory serves, it cost
$700 or so . . .

In FreeBSD, changing boot screens are simply a matter of changing the image file specified in the/boot/loader.conf. Or you could copy over the file specified with others (via cron, rc script, whatever.:)

If you have FreeBSD, check out FreeBSD Splash Screens [baldwin.cx] for how to build what you need into the kernel. There's a few other instructions to follow, too.

And you sir are an Anonymous Coward. Your words doth strike at my sould. I'm so upset, I think I'll lock myself in my room smoke clove cigarettes listen to Marlyn Manson and tell my friends how depressing it is to be alive.....

It's not just eyecandy. It's a vital step to desktop acceptance. I've installed linux for non techies on their machines. I showed them how to use it, shoewed them how it differend from windows, and what's the first thing I hear from them when it starts up? "Oh, I don't know if I can do this... look at all those lines scrolling by...."

Microsoft learned a long time ago that 99% of their users don't understand or care about those lines scrolling by, and in fact it intimidates them. It is generally not considered a good idea to intimidate your users. It just makes them not want to use your system.

Sure, in the perfect world nobody would be intimidated, and everybody would understand implicity that they really don't need to pay attention to most of those messages in most cases. But the world's no perfect, and neither are the people in it.

Seriously, this is pretty cool if we *ever* expect Linux to gain a substantial foothold on the 'desktop.' The majority of users don't care how many bogomips or the details of how their scsi card is initialized, they just want to get going. All that junk *may* actually intimidate the average/novice user into thinking they're getting into something over their head.

Oh, and don't forget, in Win 9x/Me, you CAN hit -Esc- to show you all the juicy startup info....

Actually, making OSes appealing to the masses is not necessarily about just "prettying up" things. It's about making the OS transparent to the user.

I don't need to know the startup sequence my car goes through when I turn the key in the ignition. I just turn the key, the engine starts and I drive away.

This is the type of thing we should be striving for with computers. You turn the key, the machine starts and you use it. This whole logo thing hiding the boot messages at startup is not what we should be aiming for, though. We shouldn't get excited about it. But, neither should we want all those startup messages everytime we boot. What we should be striving for is a boot process that just does what it's supposed to - boot the computer and get the user to a state of working usefulness. If there are problems, you can flip a switch that provides diagnostics to send to someone (like taking the car to the shop), or the OS could be smart enough to even handle the error checking itself and fix any problems on its own, similar to the disc error checking that occurs if you shut down your computer "improperly."

The idea behind the the logo mentality is what matters here. Creating computer systems that are "user friendly" is the goal, and note that "user friendly" is not synonymous with "pretty" - it's means creating a tool that the user can use without caring what's going on inside.

Isn't this one of the things about Corel Linux that bothered people? I know it certainly bothered me.

And let's not forget that the people that are claiming this is really, really important are the same people that agreed whole-heartedly with that article a while back that said that there are way too many packages included with Linux distributions. These people want Linux to be just exactly like Windows. They want a system that hides everything from them. They want a system that is basically as non-powerful as possible so that the system can tell them how to work, not the other way around. They want a system that comes with nothing, so that they have to run down to Best Buy and plunk down another couple of hundred dollars before they can get any work done. Frankly, I don't understand why they want to be so limitted in how they use their system.

Now, don't get me wrong. I see nothing wrong with eye candy, even if it is just for the sake of having more eye candy. As long as it is always optional, so that I don't have to wait for that "pretty" penguin screen to disappear on my server before going to the command line, or worse yet, get stuck with a full X-based install on a system that I'm trying to set up to be headless. But please, let's not get overjoyed every time we get Linux one step close to being just like Windows. There are still plenty of us out here that started using Linux because it wasn't like Windows, and we want to keep it that way. We aren't trying to avoid progress. We are trying to promote progress, and avoid regression.

To those that like Windows, and want a Windows like system, I have a suggestion: USE WINDOWS! I know, it sounds like blasphemy, but really it isn't that big of a deal. If you want Windows, it really isn't that terrible of a thing to use it. If you want a Unix like system, then there are plenty of free choices out there (Linux and the BSDs among them). But I do not understand why the free Unices must give up their Unix heritage so that they can be "more like Windows". Windows isn't that bad. Some of us just prefer using Unix and Unix like systems. For those of us that do, we do not want to be stuck having to choose between Windows and what used to be a Unix clone but is now a Windows clone. That will not allow us choice. Unless (as I've said before) you actually believed that the choice between George W. and Al Gore was a real choice. In that case, I have wasted my writing time.

Seriously, this is pretty dumb. Why does everyone want linux to "gain a substantial foothold on the desktop". If the majority of users don't care about the damned messages then whats the problem? I don't see any; if they don't like it then they don't have to use it. However people on here recommending adding more bloat to the kernel for a pretty startup screen need to think for a second.

1. If you plan on seeing that bootup splash screen alot then stability is not focus for you.
2. If stability is not your focus then don't use linux.
3. If you want pretty boot splash screens instead of dire information of whats inside your computer and how its operating with linux; then you're a fool. (This is why I don't tolerate macs and this is also why I always press ESC when starting a windows computer. To make sure that nothings going wrong)

I'd really pay to see some of your faces when you compile that new kernel and all you get is a stupid splash screen instead of making sure everything is working. Then again I've come to the conclusion that most of you don't compile kernels or work with enough hardware to know that you NEED those messages on startup for a machine that you don't know or for new hardware that you added.

it's projects like this that provide a reason for having virtual frame buffers's in the kernel in the first place.okay - it doesn't alter the usefulness of the kernel, but it *does* provide the perception of friendliness. if you can't see the confusing messages, you don't get confused - simple. this is something i had wondered about a couple of years ago when i started using linux. in my opinion - it's pretty cool.

I tried the Linux Progress Patch sometime last week and found it to be interesting. Sure, it was neat seeing this fancy debian boot screen, but it was not all that easy. A patching of the kernel and entire kernel recompile is neccessary in order to get it working.

If I were to suggest anything, it would be to allow the user the hit escape to view the boot information. Sure you can hit F2 to see it there, but I would like it much more to just hit escape.

Another key point is that if you move the mouse while it's booting, it leaves big black streaks across the screen (but then again, why would you move your mouse).

Overall it's an okay program with lots of work to go. When it can be integrated into a users system in a matter of seconds is when people will start checking it out more.

(Also, you need to put a ml at the end of the Energy Star link in this story).

I can start the Windows machine rebooting while at the CLI on the Linux machine. Once the Windows machine it through the BIOS messages, I start the Linux machine rebooting. By the time Windows is to the desktop and done loading, I have already booted into Linux and started X.

This runs in QNX from the console, but there's no reason it couldn't be adapted to other motherboards and BIOS setups.

The nice thing is that it's a BIOS hack, so even if you yank out a hard drive to boot Windoze to play some games, you still have your funky boot logo.

Yeah, I also like watching my PC autodetect the hard drives, and I also like seeing all the boot log stuff scrolling by on a *nix boot. But as others have correctly pointed out, this just scares most sheeple, who want to look at something pretty so they don't have to wonder what's going on under the hood. Whether we like their preference or not, it's real, and our obligation should be to the user, not to our notions of what a *nix boot "should" look like.

Linux is about choice. You should be able to have a graphical login, AND see the last line of the boot messages at the same time. Or else you hit return and you get the boot messages. I don't know if the boot prompt actually does this, but it should.
-russ

Well, to satisfy everybody, I'd say that some kind of animation during the boot could be cool provided Linux startup is still informative and quick enough.
I'll take RiscOS [riscos.com] as an example:
In this case we have:

a resources check during which the screen background color change.
It is really quick and hence, not disturbing.
In case there is an hardware error here, just remember the last color you saw and check with the manual if it was due to the mainboard, the ram, the sound/video chip (VIDC) or the cpu.

some information are then displayed (proc, RAM, extensions.). This step is also quite short (2-3sec)

then the Wimp (aka RiscOS' GUI) appears.

A complete startup on a clean machine can be as short as 5 secondes.

So my question is : Do we need machines that are nice to contemplate while one's waiting for them to finish booting or do we need machines with a quick, informative and efficient boot sequence ?

...and use them as the boot logo. The demo scene, so interested in small tight code, could be a good asset.

If not that, use flash and a limited runtime boot program, such as the one I mentioned earlier [geocities.com]. Who wouldn't want to see boot messages drift away like StarWars credits. (OK...once in a while. After all, how many times do you need to reboot your machine each year?)

Perhaps I'm the only one that actually went to the site, but it appears that bootup messages are piped to the splash screen. I'd double-check the code before I installed it, though.

Personally, I'll definitely be giving this a try...anything to make my box more custom, sleek, and sexy is cred by me. I've single-handedly drawn most of my friends to Linux by extolling it's many virtues, and this is just another "Wow, cool!" factor.

Bottom line: It's Open Source Software. The beauty of that is, you have a choice. Install it or don't, but don't shit all over the people who think this is a cool thing.

--Just Another Pimp A$$ Perl Hacker (who gets paid to 'fiddle with logging and other bullshit')

I just got something like that working this morning. The answer: start XDM first thing after mounting the partitions. My boot scripts are custom made (by me), so it's easy for me to do, but it shouldn't be too hard even on distro scripts.

So, my computer checks the filesystems, mounts them, starts xdm, and then continues on to set up networking, services, etc. I'm working as soon as it starts xdm.

My X setup takes mouse data from gpm. This could cause some problems with kdm (which can use the mouse), but the mouse is not needed or used in xdm. I have gpm starting afterwards, and gpm is loaded by the time I finish logging in.

This sort of thing is probably a good idea as long as it has one simple feature. If you press a specific key during the start up sequence the nice pretty image disappears and is replaced by the useful messages. Then you have the picture that doesn't scare non-technical users and the text available if there is a major problem.

Professionals often like their systems lean and mean, stripped down with only the essentials to get the maximum performance out of their equipment.

There is also those other strange people who want to put every bell, light and whistle on their rig, even if it is just to scare people, and intimidate the neighbors. Sort of like the Hell's Angels (with paint jobs, etc) or other motor cycle enthuthiasts with lights, radios, and enough gear to outfit a mobile home.

As a side note, this might be related to this story [newscientist.com] over the holidays describing how men in bars flaunt their mobile phones to attract women (and it works). The geek with the most impressive rack of equipment could attract the best partners. Or so the logic would go.

The only point here is that mental/emotional factors have to be considered as well.

So an opening animated graphic (or even a shockwave/flash file) would be attract to some people, beginners and otherwise. I imagine you could even have a whole operating system where many cues are not done by sound files(as in windows) but are by embedded flash files, etc. The computer could seem to be alive to the beginner, if this were done cleverly.

The NeXT boot sequence was quite pretty, graphical, and told you what was happening with minimal detail.

However sometimes you needed the real info, in which case there was an alternative boot time switch that let you do just that (I can't remember the exact process, but it would be equiv to adding a parameter to a lilo command line).

I thought the main difference between Windows and Linux was that Windows forced people to accept a crippled system that hid everything from them. Its large market share helps maintain this. Linux on the other hand is suppose to free you from constraints (both intellectually and monetarily).

If some users want a Linux distro that is essentially Windows in a box, great. It will grow the Linux mindshare/marketshare (which is good because it portents more applications for them and for us), and chances are some of them will grow beyond the self imposed limitations of their choice as they comfortable with a new OS. I'm also sure there will always be distros that are aimed more for the more technical minded, because we don't want those 'limitations'. I use quotes deliberately because unlink windows, with linux you will most likely have a choice:

Like a distro, but don't want a kernel option? You claim to like the power of Linux, recompile the kernel.
Don't want a particular package? Uninstall it.
Want a different window manager? Install it.

Heck, how many of us hit the ESC key durring Win9x bootup to see all the messages go by even though 99% of the time we're not going to see anything? Its conditioning. Let them get used to Linux, booting straight to a GUI, and then they'll slowly get used to shell programming, or the script language of their favorite techies choice (we are after all the ones they usually turn to for help).

I agree, windows is good... provided you never plan to upgrade. I found it frustrating that machines that shipped with USB ports and Win95, became useless when Microsoft decreed that all new devices should only support USB under Win98 if they wanted the Windows compatible logo (can we say forced upgrade after all hyping they and the hardware manufacturers did about it?)

RedHat 7.0 users will probably find this useful : I've built a patched version of the "initscripts" package that includes tests to display the services startup messages with the Linux Progress Patch (of course, you can still use a non-patched kernel without any problems).
My scripts are available in the official packages, but you can grab an updated RPM (easier and cleaner to install) from my website in the "initscripts-lpp" directory:

When it boots it shows a Windows 2000 screen..... My XDM looks exactly like a windows 2000 login. No one knows I run Linux/FreeBSD/insertfavoriteunixhere, my CTO think's I'm a good little Microsoft boy. He's amazed by the amount of work I can get done. I keep telling him my outlook is fubar, so I'm using something else. He believes me.